Cadillac BLS In Depth

[Variance]

The article is massively long (5 pages), so here's the link:

World Car Fans: Cadillac BLS In Depth

[regfootball]

its ok, but not right for the US, obviously.

A car this size, sure, but one so obviously 9-3 and so feminine.

this is a chick cadillac.

The CTS is a great bottom product for Caddy.

Edited March 7, 2006 by regfootball

[CSpec]

There's way too much 9-3 in it. However, the next BLS with rear-biased AWD should be much better.

[sciguy_0504]

I think it is nice. I would take one over the CTS even though it is FWD. The interior is much better and I like how the exterior looks.

[pow]

I think it's nice... it'll do well against metrosexual cars like the S40.

[ZL-1]

Interesting, but too descriptive. I wished for real-world driving impressions.

If things go well career-wise, this car will make it to my shortlist. The 1.9L diesel would be a nice company car.

EDIT: I hope Kroymans does a good job in translating the BLS brochure to Portuguese. The job they did with the other Cadillacs and the Corvette is nothing short of

Edited March 7, 2006 by ZL-1

[titan]

You guys are rough... I don't think the car's that feminine.

[Croc]

I think it's fine, and other than door handles I really see very little 9-3 in it. This is good differentiation.

[Robert Hall]

You guys are rough... I don't think the car's that feminine.

It looks fine..it would make a good entry level Caddy for the US.

[boblutzfan]

No thanks. While I understand the need for it in Europe - I like the idea that the CTS is unique not sharing a platform with any other GM brand while offering a true RWD drivers car as the base vehicle for Cadillac.

The interior issues will be corrected with the next CTS within the year. I predict the next CTS will have a nicer interior than the BLS anyway.

[jrockb4]

I think that is real nice, should go up against the Acura and lower level Lexus (300) real well. I think it will also serve as a good intro into the Caddy family. A good place holder until the new BLS comes and the CTS grows, they will need something small to battle the IS, C Series and others.

[Sixty8panther]

This car is gross. It looks like someone stretched the nose of a CTS on photoshop without any clue as to aesthetic proportions or a sense of balance. The whole damn thing si guly and ungainly, every line is "off" or "unbalanced" somehow and the nose is almost cantelevered in a most horrible way.

Of course worst of all the SAAB/Opel mechanicals and FWD are unexceptable!

Tie me up and pour hot molten lead down my throat I still say it's NOTHING more than a 21st century version of the C1marron.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Robert Hall]

This car is gross. It looks like someone stretched the nose of a CTS on photoshop without any clue as to aesthetic proportions or a sense of balance. The whole damn thing si guly and ungainly, every line is "off" or "unbalanced" somehow and the nose is almost cantelevered in a most horrible way.

Of course worst of all the SAAB/Opel mechanicals and FWD are unexceptable!

Tie me up and pour hot molten lead down my throat I still say it's NOTHING more than a 21st century version of the C1marron.

There's nothing wrong with Saab 9-3 and Opel mechanicals...not all Cadillacs have esclusive platforms/engines/etc--look at the Escalade.

It's an exaggeration to compare the BLS to the Cimmaron--the Cimmaron was based on the lowly Cavalier!!

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't think it is fair to compair an 83 Cavalier to a 2003 9-3.

[carguy22]

I love the rear of the BLS if the CTS rear looked that I would total buy one. The front needs a little work but it's okay.

[VenSeattle]

I don't have a problem with the BLS. I think it's attractive and a good vehicle for Cadillac. I'd buy one over the 9-3.

If Cadillac imported the BLS, I think more Americans would buy it over the current 9-3 also. Sad... but probably true.

When it comes to market placement, it makes me think of Infiniti's original G20 or Acura's current TSX. Someone mentioned Volvo's S40. That too.

[zbad1]

I remembered this car as a lot uglier than it is. Has it been tweaked since the original pcitures were released? I really like the back end! I wish I could have the CTS front end and the BTS reaar. Perfect....

[Croc]

Has it been tweaked since the original pcitures were released?

No.

[BigPontiac]

Hey look, it's Cadillac's 3-Series competitor...

[Flybrian]

The fact that it unintentionally shares front fascia cues with the Avalon bothers me. But besides that, not bad.

And Sixty8, to serious attempt to liken this to the valiant attempt at an entry-level luxury car shows a lack of reason.

[Northstar]

The interior is pretty good, and I like the design, but there's something that just doesn't quite say luxury car to me.

I do like the exterior except for the roofline. It's too curvy for the rest of the car.

[Sixty8panther]

1982 J-body = todays Cobalt

by extension the Cobalt has a lot of Opel in it and therefore vice versa in a manner of speaking....

The fact that the BulL$h! is a "better" car than the C!marron is only because todays cars are better NOT becuase the BLS is any more distanced or upscale from the top of ther line Cobalt versus the top of the line 1982 Cavalier in the C;marron';s case.

In other words in todays Mostly-RWD Caddy lineup the BLS is just as much of a pathetic wannabe as the FWD C|marron was in the 1982 Caddy lineup, which was (unfortunately) primarily FWD and therfoer they at least had an excuse to use FWD... althought it was a lame one!

Longwinded and convoluted but it's a very valid point if you think about it. THe BLS is a waste of time... it's more inferior to the CTS than the J-body attempt at an entry-level luxury car was to the Bustle back Seville in the early 80s, and even more so the super-compact 84-up Sevillle.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Croc]

Hey Sly, lay off the crackpipe...THEN post.

[Flybrian]

1982 J-body = todays Cobalt

by extension the Cobalt has a lot of Opel in it and therefore vice versa in a manner of speaking....

No. NA Delta is not shared with anything Opel. Check the facts.

The fact that the BulL$h! is a "better" car than the C!marron is only because todays cars are better NOT becuase the BLS is any more distanced or upscale from the top of ther line Cobalt versus the top of the line 1982 Cavalier in the C;marron';s case.

Cavalier was a compact economy car occupying below-middle rung status in Chevy's lineup. Epsilon is a midsize family car, with the 9-3 occupying an entry-luxury position in the market. So does the BLS. Check the facts.

In other words in todays Mostly-RWD Caddy lineup the BLS is just as much of a pathetic wannabe as the FWD C|marron was in the 1982 Caddy lineup, which was (unfortunately) primarily FWD and therfoer they at least had an excuse to use FWD... althought it was a lame one!

Cadillac's 1982 FWD lineup consisted of the valiant attempt at an entry-level luxury car, Eldorado, and Seville. RWD entires included the Fleetwood, Fleetwood Brougham, Coupe and Sedan DeVilles, all of which made up a higher percentage of sales (136k vs. 96k) for the '82 model year, so hardly "primarily" as you claim. Check the facts.

THe BLS is a waste of time... it's more inferior to the CTS than the J-body attempt at an entry-level luxury car was to the Bustle back Seville in the early 80s, and even more so the super-compact 84-up Sevillle.

That line alone invalidates your whole argument. All conjecture and personal sentiment with a total lack of fact.

...it's a very valid point if you think about it.

I did. And I checked the facts. So should you.

Longwinded and convoluted

At last! We agree!

[Sixty8panther]

Fly:

The Ecotech, for one thing was in the Europe powering the Astra logn before the Cadaver & Grand Am got it.... The BLS mechanicals do not impress me at all. It's a step in the wrond direction IMHO, SAAB is not my idea of Luxur anyway... it's my idea of a Quirky Europan car that profesors drive. Not all SAABs are bad but most are overpriced and underwhelming. Sorry, but that's my :twocents:

Hey Sly, lay off the crackpipe...THEN post.

As soon as you sotp taking the Jerk Pills I shall comply.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Flybrian]

Fly:

The Ecotech, for one thing was in the Europe powering the Astra logn before the Cadaver & Grand Am got it....

Engine was shared, not platform. You mentioned the Cobalt shared alot with Opel, which is doesn't aside from the engine. Engine commonalities don't make cars twins. And even if they did, you comparison makes no sense.

The BLS mechanicals do not impress me at all. It's a step in the wrond direction IMHO, SAAB is not my idea of Luxur anyway... it's my idea of a Quirky Europan car that profesors drive. Not all SAABs are bad but most are overpriced and underwhelming. Sorry, but that's my :twocents:

You know what, that's fine. That's all your opinion and allrighty then. But the rest makes absolutely no sense.

I think the car is fine for Europe. Its compact, has that Euro-flavored interior, plus possible diesel availability. It'll do fine.

[Drew Dowdell]

Fly:

The Ecotech, for one thing was in the Europe powering the Astra logn before the Cadaver & Grand Am got it.... The BLS mechanicals do not impress me at all. It's a step in the wrond direction IMHO, SAAB is not my idea of Luxur anyway... it's my idea of a Quirky Europan car that profesors drive. Not all SAABs are bad but most are overpriced and underwhelming. Sorry, but that's my :twocents:

As soon as you sotp taking the Jerk Pills I shall comply.

I think Audi, Volvo, and Acura would like to have a word with you.

[rueben44]

What ever that car is nice and worlds better looking than my CTS. I wish my CTS looked like that inside then maybe I would not start to be embarrassed of the materials.

[Sixty8panther]

I think the car is fine for Europe. Its compact, has that Euro-flavored interior, plus possible diesel availability. It'll do fine.

To be honest if I had not read multiple "we need to bring this to the USA" responses about this car in the past few months I would have probably left this thread alone.

I think it's a very bad idea to brign this to our shores... and even in other markets it's a sad state of affairs when this si the car that Cadillac will be judged by.

Next to a Mercedes and/or BMW it will be a pathetic and soul-less product that willm just ruin Cadillac's standard of the world rep. like Packard's image was ruined with the Studebaker rebadges in the 1950s.

The diesle powerplant is a great idea for Europe but makes even more sense in the CTS chassis. WTF develop a car the size and price fo the CTS if only ot make it inferior to the CTS????

Becasue it's another example of GM trying to squeeze blood out of a Rock wiht the SAAB factory/deal, that's what it comes down to... this is a BuLi$h! product that does not have much basis for existance, adapting the CTS to diesel and RHD makes much more sense and if GM just got the F*** rid of SAAB already we could stop hemhoraging cash in stupid ventures like this. Why not spend the money it took to develop this car to improve the CTS and adapt it to the EUro market?

There I said it. I know SAAB is GM but to be honest I would have dumped it like a rock and kept Subaru instead.

And THAT is another reason why I despise this product. It's lame for many other reasons but it really is the C1marron of the 21st century. It should not even exist and yet it does.

[Croc]

Hmmm....Jerk Pills? Never touched them. Sounds illegal. Sorry 68, this Crocodile is drug-free, and he is urging you to become so yourself :AH-HA_wink:

Edited March 8, 2006 by Croc

[pow]

To be honest if I had not read multiple "we need to bring this to the USA" responses about this car in the past few months I would have probably left this thread alone.

I think it's a very bad idea to brign this to our shores... and even in other markets it's a sad state of affairs when this si the car that Cadillac will be judged by.

Next to a Mercedes and/or BMW it will be a pathetic and soul-less product that willm just ruin Cadillac's standard of the world rep. like Packard's image was ruined with the Studebaker rebadges in the 1950s.

The diesle powerplant is a great idea for Europe but makes even more sense in the CTS chassis. WTF develop a car the size and price fo the CTS if only ot make it inferior to the CTS????

Becasue it's another example of GM trying to squeeze blood out of a Rock wiht the SAAB factory/deal, that's what it comes down to... this is a BuLi$h! product that does not have much basis for existance, adapting the CTS to diesel and RHD makes much more sense and if GM just got the F*** rid of SAAB already we could stop hemhoraging cash in stupid ventures like this. Why not spend the money it took to develop this car to improve the CTS and adapt it to the EUro market?

There I said it. I know SAAB is GM but to be honest I would have dumped it like a rock and kept Subaru instead.

And THAT is another reason why I despise this product. It's lame for many other reasons but it really is the C1marron of the 21st century. It should not even exist and yet it does.

The BLS serves the same purpose as the Escalade and DTS, and that is to broaden the appeal of the Cadillac brand. I suspect the BLS will do better than the CTS, simply because the roads are narrower and the expected level of quality is much higher. The BLS is $8500 cheaper than the CTS in the UK.

[ZL-1]

The BLS serves the same purpose as the Escalade and DTS, and that is to broaden the appeal of the Cadillac brand. I suspect the BLS will do better than the CTS, simply because the roads are narrower and the expected level of quality is much higher. The BLS is $8500 cheaper than the CTS in the UK.

You nailed it! Size matters here in Europe, and I dont think Europeans will put the CTS and 3-series in the same class. Ever.

[Sixty8panther]

The CTS is too Big? It's a BMW 3-series sized car... and a luxury brand should not make a smaller car than that IMO.... Cadillac's role in the GM lineup certainly should NOT be to make cheap, FWD narrow cars. That's what Opel and recently introduced Chevrolet is for in Europe.

Well, I'm not going to change your minds and vice-versa certainly will not happen either so I'll just quit now.

[boblutzfan]

The CTS is too Big? It's a BMW 3-series sized car... and a luxury brand should not make a smaller car than that IMO.... Cadillac's role in the GM lineup certainly should NOT be to make cheap, FWD narrow cars. That's what Opel and recently introduced Chevrolet is for in Europe.

Well, I'm not going to change your minds and vice-versa certainly will not happen either so I'll just quit now.

I think both of you have valid points. I have lived in Europe and Saab is not considered a luxury car over there. The Cadillac brand = Luxury but when it is such a blatant rebadge it doesn't make sense. What would American's think if DCX took a perfectly fine Chrysler 300 and slapped a Mercedes Benz badge on it and sold it as an entry level MB? That is basically what GM is doing with the BLS. Sure, it is a fine car with a good interior - but it is still a rebadge from a lessor brand. Just a reminder - Cadillac is the premium GM brand. For those of you who complain about the CTS interior - sure the BLS is better, I would hope it is. Remember, the BLS was introduced in late 2005 and the CTS was introduced nearly three years earlier - GM has had time to work on the Cadillac image and a lot has changed since 2002/2003.

The BLS isn't quite a valiant attempt at an entry-level luxury car - but it doesn't justify the Wreath and Crest. If you want a finely tuned FWD premium sedan then go buy a Saab. If you don't like the current CTS - then wait 12 months - there will be a CTS that will blow the BLS away pretty soon.

Now, I realize that the DTS shares mechanicals with the Lucerne (although most are borrowed by Buick from Cadillac so not borrowed from a cheaper brand) and the Escalade is a GMT900 SUV shared with GMC and Chevy. Large Luxury SUVs are measured by a different standard than premium sedans. Cadillac has the SRX (which is unique to the brand) to compete with other European SUVs in that segment - the Escalade is designed to compete against other brands rebadged trucks... Navigator, QX45, LX470.

When it comes to luxury sedans from a corporations top make - they shouldn't be rebadges... That is the problem with the BLS.

Edited March 8, 2006 by boblutzfan

[Flybrian]

The CTS is too Big? It's a BMW 3-series sized car...

Wrong again. It competes with other entry-lux cars in price and does so here successfully because we really have no interest in displacement or size in the United States. Check the facts.

CTS vs. 3er vs. 5er @ MSNCarpoint

Dimensionally, its a 5-Series competitior. Its over a foot longer than a 3-Series sedan!

[boblutzfan]

Correct - the CTS is closer in size to the 5 series. If GM wants to go after the 3 series then they need to spend the money to develop a RWD car and not try to compete with Saab, Acura and Volvo with a FWD entry level car. The BLS does not compete with the 3 series - neither does the CTS.

[Sixty8panther]

Wrong again. ... Its over a foot longer than a 3-Series sedan!

I thought we were just talking width not length? I've driven both and the CTS certainy is NOT a 5-series size car inside or outside.

Using YOUR own source:

Width (in.)

CTS 3.6 ---------- 70.60

BMW 3-series ---- 71.50

BMW 5-series ---- 72.70

And since you guys made maneuverability into such a hot topic then consider this:

Turning Diameter (ft.)

CTS 3.6 ---------- 35.50

BMW 3-series ---- 36.10

BMW 5-series ---- 37.50

Next question?

Edited March 8, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Drew Dowdell]

The CTS is too Big? It's a BMW 3-series sized car...

68 this is directed at you! The CTS is less then an inch different then the BMW 5-series in both overall length and in wheel base. STOP saying the CTS is a 3-series sized car. You are wrong today and you've been wrong every other time you've posted that "fact".

[boblutzfan]

The CTS is similar in price to the 3 series yet it is closer in size to the 5 series. The problem with the current CTS is that it does not compete with any BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Audi, etc when it comes to the interior design, quality and materials.

I think this argument about the CTS is gettting out of hand. It is an old car that is slated for a redesign soon.

Wasn't this thread originally talking about the BLS?

[Robert Hall]

68 this is directed at you! The CTS is less then an inch different then the BMW 5-series in both overall length and in wheel base. STOP saying the CTS is a 3-series sized car. You are wrong today and you've been wrong every other time you've posted that "fact".

I think it is pointless to argue with 68..he has his mind set and won't listen to facts or other opinions.

Anyway, I wouldn't call the BLS a rebadge or badge-engineered Saab..it really looks nothing like the 9-3.

[ZL-1]

The CTS is too Big? It's a BMW 3-series sized car... and a luxury brand should not make a smaller car than that IMO.... Cadillac's role in the GM lineup certainly should NOT be to make cheap, FWD narrow cars. That's what Opel and recently introduced Chevrolet is for in Europe.

Well, I'm not going to change your minds and vice-versa certainly will not happen either so I'll just quit now.

The CTS is not a 3-series sized car:

CTS lenght/width/height/wheelbase = 190.1/70.6/56.7/113.4 in.

3-series lenght/width/height/wheelbase = 178.2/71.5/55.9/108.7 in.

(Dimensions taken from cadillac.com and caranddriver.com)

12 inches in length is a huge difference. For comparison purposes, here are the BLS dimensions (at 2.54cm per inch): 184.3/69/57.9/105.3 in. Much closer to the 3-series, but somewhat bigger in length.

I do agree with your FWD comment. Ideally, next BLS should become RWD, but I don't see GM having the money to develop a small RWD architecture right now.

[Drew Dowdell]

I do agree with your FWD comment. Ideally, next BLS should become RWD, but I don't see GM having the money to develop a small RWD architecture right now.

Put an awsome AWD system in there and we'd overlook it I'm sure.

[ZL-1]

Put an awsome AWD system in there and we'd overlook it I'm sure.

Like the Audi RS4's rear-biased AWD? that would be sweet!

[boblutzfan]

Anyway, I wouldn't call the BLS a rebadge or badge-engineered Saab..it really looks nothing like the 9-3.

It is as close to the 9-3 as the Escalade is to the Tahoe the Navigator to the Expedition, Zephyr to the Fusion, ES350 is to the Camry or the Aspen to the Durango.

All have different sheetmetal and upgraded interiors but are based on a cheaper model. Call them what you will, but they are based on cheaper models and are not a hallmark of a high end brand. I have already stated my opinion on full size luxury SUVs - rebadges are acceptable since they are not necessarily hallmarks of european sport sedan luxury makes.

I don't see Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Infiniti or Lexus bringing entry level sports sedans to market based on cheaper FWD sedans. Yes, Lexus has the ES - but the real entry level is the IS250 - which is unique to this market.

Cadillac doesn't need the BLS in the US - it would be better to develop an IS/3 series competitor - meaning that it be RWD.

Edited March 8, 2006 by boblutzfan

[boblutzfan]

Another reason that the BLS would be bad for GM is that many Cadillac dealerships share space with Saabs in US showrooms. It would not be good for either brand to have the 9-3 and BLS on the same showroom floor.

[ponchoman49]

What a silly, blah looking car. And that oversize Art & Science grille is rediculous.

[ToniCipriani]

Fly:

The Ecotech, for one thing was in the Europe powering the Astra logn before the Cadaver & Grand Am got it.... The BLS mechanicals do not impress me at all. It's a step in the wrond direction IMHO, SAAB is not my idea of Luxur anyway... it's my idea of a Quirky Europan car that profesors drive. Not all SAABs are bad but most are overpriced and underwhelming. Sorry, but that's my :twocents:

Your main concern is that Saab is not RWD. You'll never like Saab.

I think the BLS is fine for Europe. Looking at the bigger picture, Euro cars are more about compact size cars. The BLS is just a quick and dirty badge job to an extent as GM Europe needed it. It's almost time for the 9-3 to be redesigned anyways.

As long as the NA Cadillac lineup stays RWD, then it's fine.

[Drew Dowdell]

It is as close to the 9-3 as the Escalade is to the Tahoe the Navigator to the Expedition, Zephyr to the Fusion, ES350 is to the Camry or the Aspen to the Durango.

All have different sheetmetal and upgraded interiors but are based on a cheaper model.  Call them what you will, but they are based on cheaper models and are not a hallmark of a high end brand.  I have already stated my opinion on full size luxury SUVs  - rebadges are acceptable since they are not necessarily hallmarks of european sport sedan luxury makes.

I don't see Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Infiniti or Lexus bringing entry level sports sedans to market based on cheaper FWD sedans.  Yes, Lexus has the ES - but the real entry level is the IS250 - which is unique to this market.

Cadillac doesn't need the BLS in the US - it would be better to develop an IS/3 series competitor - meaning that it be RWD.

Except that the 9-3 and the BLS share a price point... so it's not that the BLS is based on a cheaper car. Your analagy would have been closer if you said the Cobalt is related to the G5 in the same way the 9-3 is related to the Cadillac.

[boblutzfan]

Except that the 9-3 and the BLS share a price point... so it's not that the BLS is based on a cheaper car.  Your analagy would have been closer if you said the Cobalt is related to the G5 in the same way the 9-3 is related to the Cadillac.

I'm sure the price is similar but I would imagine that the BLS is more expensive than the 9-3 in Europe. Even so... having them in the same price point adds more confusion to what vehicle to buy.

Bad idea for the US market either way.

[sciguy_0504]

Even though I like it, I would not bring the BLS to North America because it is FWD. Yes, that reason alone. Slap some AWD on it or wait until EpII (it will be able to carry FWD/AWD/RWD, right?)